UA A320 Tailstrike - continued on 7 more sectors
Jun 16, 2023, 3:48 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
UA A320 Tailstrike - continued on 7 more sectors
A United Airbus A320-200, performing flight UA-1091 from Mexico City (Mexico) to Houston Intercontinental,TX (USA) on Mar 22nd 2023 with 151 passengers and 6 crew, but struck its tail onto the runway surface. There were no injuries.About 90 minutes later the aircraft departed and performed 7 more sectors until Mar 25th 2023. The NTSB rated the occurrence an accident stating the aircraft sustained substantial damage.
Jun 16, 2023, 4:26 pm
#2
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AVP & PEK
Programs: UA 1K 1.9MM
Posts: 6,387
That quote is weirdly truncated, so here's the actual quote:
A United Airbus A320-200, registration N1902U performing flight UA-1091 from Mexico City (Mexico) to Houston Intercontinental,TX (USA) with 151 passengers and 6 crew, landed on Houston's runway 27 at 17:27L (22:27Z) but struck its tail onto the runway surface. The aircraft rolled out without further incident and taxied to the apron. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained substantial damage.
About 90 minutes later the aircraft departed for its next flight climbing to FL340 and performed 7 more sectors until Mar 25th 2023 before being removed from service at Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA). The aircraft positioned from Dallas to Houston Intercontinental on Apr 21st 2023 and is on the ground in Houston since (standing Jun 8th 2023).
The NTSB rated the occurrence an accident stating the aircraft sustained substantial damage on landing in Houston due to a tail strike and opened an investigation.
About 90 minutes later the aircraft departed for its next flight climbing to FL340 and performed 7 more sectors until Mar 25th 2023 before being removed from service at Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA). The aircraft positioned from Dallas to Houston Intercontinental on Apr 21st 2023 and is on the ground in Houston since (standing Jun 8th 2023).
The NTSB rated the occurrence an accident stating the aircraft sustained substantial damage on landing in Houston due to a tail strike and opened an investigation.
Jun 17, 2023, 8:56 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,489
Can anyone fill in some context? It sounds like a concern, but I don't know — is it?
More un-organized questions:
Would A320 pilots be likely not to know that there was a tailstrike? I see a report here that indicates it may not be obvious to the pilots (last paragraph of 'History of flight'). Is there a reporting / inspection procedure after a tailstrike on landing? Who is most likely to notice the tailstrike? And in this case, how was it ultimately known which among the at least eight potential sectors had the tailstrike?
More un-organized questions:
Would A320 pilots be likely not to know that there was a tailstrike? I see a report here that indicates it may not be obvious to the pilots (last paragraph of 'History of flight'). Is there a reporting / inspection procedure after a tailstrike on landing? Who is most likely to notice the tailstrike? And in this case, how was it ultimately known which among the at least eight potential sectors had the tailstrike?
Jun 17, 2023, 9:07 am
#6
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: UA 1K MM, HHonors Diamond,PC, Marriott Rewards Gold
Posts: 1,118
Can anyone fill in some context? It sounds like a concern, but I don't know — is it?
More un-organized questions:
Would A320 pilots be likely not to know that there was a tailstrike? I see a report here that indicates it may not be obvious to the pilots (last paragraph of 'History of flight'). Is there a reporting / inspection procedure after a tailstrike on landing? Who is most likely to notice the tailstrike? And in this case, how was it ultimately known which among the at least eight potential sectors had the tailstrike?
More un-organized questions:
Would A320 pilots be likely not to know that there was a tailstrike? I see a report here that indicates it may not be obvious to the pilots (last paragraph of 'History of flight'). Is there a reporting / inspection procedure after a tailstrike on landing? Who is most likely to notice the tailstrike? And in this case, how was it ultimately known which among the at least eight potential sectors had the tailstrike?
Jun 17, 2023, 9:15 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 11,489
Yeah, while the same crew might have done multiple turns with the aircraft, given that the aircraft was only taken out of service three days later, I would have thought at least a couple new crews would have chance/reason to do walkaround. Did that happen, and it wasn't noted as a concern?
Jun 17, 2023, 10:32 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
Can anyone fill in some context? It sounds like a concern, but I don't know — is it?
More un-organized questions:
Would A320 pilots be likely not to know that there was a tailstrike? I see a report here that indicates it may not be obvious to the pilots (last paragraph of 'History of flight'). Is there a reporting / inspection procedure after a tailstrike on landing? Who is most likely to notice the tailstrike? And in this case, how was it ultimately known which among the at least eight potential sectors had the tailstrike?
More un-organized questions:
Would A320 pilots be likely not to know that there was a tailstrike? I see a report here that indicates it may not be obvious to the pilots (last paragraph of 'History of flight'). Is there a reporting / inspection procedure after a tailstrike on landing? Who is most likely to notice the tailstrike? And in this case, how was it ultimately known which among the at least eight potential sectors had the tailstrike?
United Airlines flight 1091 sustained a tailstrike while landing at George Bush Intercontinental
Airport (KIAH), Houston, TX. The flight was a regularly scheduled international passenger flight
from Mexico City, Mexico to KIAH.
According to the flight crew, the captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer (FO) was
the pilot flying when they were cleared for the visual approach to runway 27 at KIAH. The
airplane was in the landing configuration and on a stabilized approach at 1,000 ft. above
ground level (AGL). About 60 ft AGL the captain noticed the airspeed begin to decay and
stated watch your speed. The FO subsequently pitched the nose of the airplane down and
added a little thrust. About 30 ft AGL, due to a higher-than-normal rate of descent the captain
commanded flare, flare, flare. The FO flared the airplane which resulted in a firm landing. As
the airplane rebounded from the firm landing the spoilers deployed resulting in a nose high
attitude. In an effort to correct for the nose high attitude, the captain and FO pushed forward
on their respective sidesticks.
The FO stated that the ground spoiler deployment coinciding with the firm touchdown resulted
in an airplane nose-up pitch attitude. As a result, the pitch attitude increased until the tail
struck the runway. After the tailstrike, the remainder of the landing and landing rollout were
normal with no risk of runway overrun or excursion.
The tailstrike resulted in abrasion damage over an area of about 19 feet long by 1 foot wide
along the aft lower fuselage. An inspection revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure
bulkhead and frames.
Airport (KIAH), Houston, TX. The flight was a regularly scheduled international passenger flight
from Mexico City, Mexico to KIAH.
According to the flight crew, the captain was the pilot monitoring, and the first officer (FO) was
the pilot flying when they were cleared for the visual approach to runway 27 at KIAH. The
airplane was in the landing configuration and on a stabilized approach at 1,000 ft. above
ground level (AGL). About 60 ft AGL the captain noticed the airspeed begin to decay and
stated watch your speed. The FO subsequently pitched the nose of the airplane down and
added a little thrust. About 30 ft AGL, due to a higher-than-normal rate of descent the captain
commanded flare, flare, flare. The FO flared the airplane which resulted in a firm landing. As
the airplane rebounded from the firm landing the spoilers deployed resulting in a nose high
attitude. In an effort to correct for the nose high attitude, the captain and FO pushed forward
on their respective sidesticks.
The FO stated that the ground spoiler deployment coinciding with the firm touchdown resulted
in an airplane nose-up pitch attitude. As a result, the pitch attitude increased until the tail
struck the runway. After the tailstrike, the remainder of the landing and landing rollout were
normal with no risk of runway overrun or excursion.
The tailstrike resulted in abrasion damage over an area of about 19 feet long by 1 foot wide
along the aft lower fuselage. An inspection revealed substantial damage to the aft pressure
bulkhead and frames.
there was a modification to flight control law since the incident you mentioned.
IMO it appears that the approach destabilized at 60'AGL on this flight. Should captain have called for go around?
how this big of a tailstrike was missed on the walk around ? and the fact it damaged the pressure bulkhead and frame. That is a very serious inflight safety risk on the 7 subsequent flights (if substantiated).
Jun 17, 2023, 10:57 am
#9
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,281
Define substantial. I can have substantial damage to my car in a car accident, yet it still maintains structural integrity and is drivable. My home can (unfortunately) take substantial damage in a storm but still be safe to live in. The NTSB report is issued because of a tail strike occurring.
Jun 17, 2023, 12:45 pm
#11
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,539
Jun 17, 2023, 5:01 pm
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
Where does it say anywhere that the tailstrike was missed on a walk around?
Define substantial. I can have substantial damage to my car in a car accident, yet it still maintains structural integrity and is drivable. My home can (unfortunately) take substantial damage in a storm but still be safe to live in. The NTSB report is issued because of a tail strike occurring.
Define substantial. I can have substantial damage to my car in a car accident, yet it still maintains structural integrity and is drivable. My home can (unfortunately) take substantial damage in a storm but still be safe to live in. The NTSB report is issued because of a tail strike occurring.
From 49 CFR 830.2 “Substantial damage” means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.
the data seems to show 7 flights were completed after the aircraft accident before it was pulled out of service in DFW, 2 flights cnx then ferried back to IAH. It has not been in service since it appears.
How does a flight which was damaged at 5:27 pm on landing on 3/23 as stated in the NTSB accident report continue to be operated for 7 more sectors?
Jun 17, 2023, 6:11 pm
#15
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,717
Please tell me in what situations your car or home are pressurized in an environment at 30,000 feet or higher, where the inside pressurization is critical to the sustainment of life for 150+ human beings.